Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1887-03-26
@, @. OATRON NOT 50 BADLY MIS-
TAKEN AS STATED.

EDITOR INTELLIGENCER:-Press Of bust
ness delayed my reply 10 Judges Hale ana
Filing, | hope you and the patrons OF your
paper will bear with me In this intrusion
upon your time. In the commencement oil
this article permit me to say, by way OF eE-
PLANTATION, that when l said that the old court
was q little loose IN its enforcement OF the
dram shop law that l did net mean or intend
to convey the idea that the members OF
the old court were not honest, but, on
the contrary, believe them both 10 be
possessed of sterling worth aud integrity
but a little misguided In Judgment. 1t IS 4
fact weli-known by the good people OF Wei
lington and numbers OF the county officials,
that they(the judges)haye had more than one
rule by which they protested to be governed
IN dramshop cases. Again, u member OF the
legal fraternity told me before this controver-
sy began, that he had urged and insisted upon
the court adopting rules in harmony with the
dram shop law, by which applicants for
dram shop licenses should be governed, he
proposing to draw up said rules in conform
ity with the law for them, but could never
get them to do it.
1 was creditably informed (and am still so
informed that such was the case) that some
IS months ago the court adopted a rule re-
quiring dram shop keepers to file a new
petition every SIX months. although said rule
was contrary to law, for every intelligent
man who has read the law will admit that
the petition holds from the time presented
until the mex July, If it complies with the
| I a .xJ IN having fIn gi1pntnrps ut u pnallritU nf
the assessed tax paving citizens. Again, If
the case spoken OF by me in my last comHu-
nieation was u renewal, as The honorable
court claims, why did the parties present a
new petition signed by l6 or Is persons as
they admit. Ii it was q renewal, as they
| claim, no petition OF any kim was necessary,
provided the old petition complied with the
law" all they had TO do was TO satisfy the
court that they had complied with the law
and pay into the treasury the amount reQulr-
ed by The state and county.
Again, Judges Hale and Filing want to
know how in the name of mrnO sense or
justice they were to know that the signatures
were genuine OF mat the petition contained
the names of q majority Of the tax paying
citizens, unless l or someone else told them.
If they will examine the law they will find
that the whole burden Of proof rests upon
the petitioners. The court can very easily
ascertain the number Ut tax -payers, as the
law requires, by having the assessor with his
books before them, and il Is their duty to re-
quire proof of the petitioners that the sigma
lures were signed to the petition by the par
ties themselves or put there by their author
ity. The law says the matter shall be de-
terminsd by the last previous assessment OF
the city town or municipality; and in fact is Sc
plain that a way -faring man, though a foo
need not err therein. Again, they say that
long since they adopted II rule requiring all
petitioners for dram shop licenses TO make an
affidavit that their petitions contained the
signatures Of q majority Of the assessed tax
paying citizens of the city, town or NUM-.
eipality, They say that they required some
thing IAN sfddavit) which all the lawyers
with whom l have conversed on the subject
say. Is not required by law, and hence is moi
false swearing to which Judge Hale asserted
week before last. Hence the natural conclu'
sion to be dedused In the premises Is (f The
quired no proof at all. or made any lnvesti'
cation In The premises. And 1t seems q
though they were a law unto themselves.
Again, as the honorable judges have seer
proper to ~ealogize their own official acts te
the detrlment of the public servants wht
have preceded them on the bench, and sug.
gested that in the future l should examine
the records and not make misstatements
Allow me to say right here that I would no
make a Misrepresentation or do them an In
Jury under any consideration. / have made
q brief examination Of the records upor
which the judges rely, and will give then
the benefit Of my observations therein
They say that many bridges have been bull
Of a better class and at less cost than eyel
before. l give the year and cost In which
few Of the iron bridges were built for com
parisOn:-
1878, across the sni on Lexington AM
Greenlon road, 70 feet long, $3.50.
1879, across Davis on Lexington aud War
ren>burg road. 20 feet long. $500.
1879. across the Sni. Moot's mill, 80 fee
long. SSI5.
1851, across the Sni on GreentOn auC
Napoleon read, so feet long, $1.237 90.
1851, across the Sni on Bales City ant
Odessa road, 50 feet long, 81 ,23I 81
1885. across Little Tabo south of Dover
O. feet long, 81. 450.
1885, across the Snl near Masterson g, 10
feet long, p2,100.
Iron was lower in 1885 than before. 1t i
true that q great number of bridges hav
been built in the last Two years, some of then
were Of little utility us compared with ex
pense incurred; for instance the iron bridg
south OF Dover on Little Tabo, and tn
bridge 5 miles southwest of Lexington OF
) Sni creek. which cost the county large sum
of money, and is but little used as well a
the road leading thereto, which the cour
opened at the expense of the taxpayers
Again I find from the records that Judge
Hale and Filing were elected in 1884, an,
took their seats on the county court benz
=, January l, 1888. These w were a maiorit
of the court, and 1t is 10 De presumed iron
their letter that they acted together IN III
matter of The county expenditures. Whe
, they assumed their position January l, 1855
they found u balance on hand in the count
o treasury Of S2o,124 II, ID the county revenu
fund on January l. 1886; they had reduce
this fund to SIS 81 p, and GU january
g 1857, they had OF hand belonging to til
county revenue fluid Sl8,459 10. l fail 10 Sc
V the economy in this Or The point they make ,
4 ! Iao-tn4 mora money In the trpasnrr rb.u, ~,
found. Beside l think that The records wi
j, show that this Is the only court that h,
u spent more money than was collected In III
same year, since the Ambrose court We,
out Uf existence. l further think that I'll
records will show that they spent mol
money In the years 1885 aud 1850 than The
}, received IN rnund uuinpers, st 600 more Ing
was received in 1850.
The acts of county courts have their er1c.
financially, after they are out OF Office. tt
court when composed OF Judges Prsthe
Harrison, Barnett, Hoard and Lockhart. use
/, economy. the effect of which was the surpll
. that WAS Inherited by these gentlemen. wi
q now strive 10 rob these faithful puolic SCI
wants of their just dues. Again I have e.
q amined the current expense account of Il
county from the year 1915 TO 1856, i~nclu,iv
and ind the average yearly expenditures f
the ten years preceding Judges Hale AT
Etnng, ~ shown by WARRANTS issued by ord,
Of the court, to be r2o 2S9 II. snd from Il
ii same source for 1889 and 1885. during the
10 economic administration tue average eXpsI
seS for the TWO years WAS Si2 ABB 81
ltI>ifue. As they sas, that hey reduce
Q The rate OF taxation from 80 TO 40 CENTS {
o the 800 on the compromise fund which
if used exclusively for the purpose OF pawn
interest on county bonds. ard expenses
10 compromising the same. The county lrea
urer pay the money out dirsItly 10 The hol,
err OF bonds az interest, aud the county cOu
therefore has but very little To do with IL
fund, and the fact that they reduced ths lev
in 1885, Is OF little moment, when 1t Is co
sidered that nearly all the bond trouble. we
settled before these penIlemen came Into q